From: Vincent Truong <vincent.truong@procabiak•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin, Perceptions, and Expectations
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 00:37:15 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACrzPenbkh86bW9GQe1M4Zt1OxDTQNeMU6osatRDEvcwOyxHAg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqK0qd_JNHCUrnz4L1axG99i9=M7DjCQWatE3Lf0HOiyA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1782 bytes --]
"Fast transactions"
Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is 'instant' by
comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is still very instant because
wallets still send notifications/pings when transactions are first seen,
not when it goes into a block. We shouldn't mislead people into thinking a
transaction literally takes 10 minutes to travel the globe.
Maybe this feels like PR speak. But being too humble about Bitcoin's
attributes isn't a good idea either.
If we're going to look at perception, image and expectations, perhaps we
can start to look at redefining some terminology too. Like confirmations,
which is an arbitrary concept. Where possible we should describe it with
finance terminology.
"0 conf transaction"
0 conf is the 'transaction' - just the act of making an exchange. It
doesn't imply safe and I believe using the word 'settle' in place of
confirmations will automatically click with merchants.
"1st conf"
A 'confirmation' is a 'settlement'. If it is 'settled', it implies final
(except by court order), whereas confirmation usually means 'ah, I've seen
it come through'. I rarely hear any sales clerk call credit card
transactions confirmed. More often you will hear 'approved' instead.
Although 1st conf can be overtaken, so...
"n confirmations"
This term can probably stay since I can't come up with a better word.
Settlements only happen once, putting a number next to it breaks the
meaning of the word. "Settled with 4 confirmations" seems pretty clear.
Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless number we ought
to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability) and go by
'confidence'. "Settled with 92% confidence." Or we can pick an arbitrary
number like 6 and use 'settling...' and 'settled' when reached.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2091 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-24 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-22 16:52 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks Pieter Wuille
2015-07-22 17:18 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-22 17:32 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-22 18:45 ` Bryan Cheng
2015-07-22 17:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-22 18:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-22 18:03 ` Alex Morcos
2015-07-22 18:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-23 12:17 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 16:17 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-23 16:28 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-07-23 16:50 ` cipher anthem
2015-07-23 17:14 ` Robert Learney
2015-07-23 18:21 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 18:47 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 17:43 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 18:10 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-23 19:14 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:35 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-07-23 19:39 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:51 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:52 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-23 20:26 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 20:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 23:42 ` Benedict Chan
[not found] ` <42BF7FEB-320F-43BE-B3D9-1D76CB8B9975@gmai>
2015-07-23 23:57 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:04 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:20 ` Simon Liu
2015-07-24 0:22 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:32 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:38 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:45 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:49 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-24 1:03 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:08 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:25 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:28 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:42 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:55 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 2:12 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin, Perceptions, and Expectations Raystonn .
2015-07-24 8:48 ` Jonas Schnelli
2015-07-24 9:42 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 14:37 ` Vincent Truong [this message]
2015-07-25 2:18 ` gb
2015-07-25 11:22 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-25 15:04 ` Thomas Kerin
2015-07-24 0:56 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:05 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-23 18:12 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-23 18:57 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-23 17:51 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 6:30 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-24 9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 22:50 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-28 11:29 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-28 11:32 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-28 16:44 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-28 17:33 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-22 19:17 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 21:43 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-22 21:56 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 22:01 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-22 22:09 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 1:53 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 22:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-23 0:27 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-23 0:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 4:40 ` Edmund Edgar
2015-07-27 12:08 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-27 12:44 ` Milly Bitcoin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACrzPenbkh86bW9GQe1M4Zt1OxDTQNeMU6osatRDEvcwOyxHAg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vincent.truong@procabiak$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox